No GM has never seen the Grand Prix. (Plus, it is no longer a player's own analysis if the player uses a computer--many programs these days are GM-strength--to analyze a move, regardless of who suggested it.)
I agree with you that some people put too much emphasis on rating points, but for the most part, if 2 players (a GM and a non-GM) analyze an unfamiliar position for the same amount of time (with no computer assistance), I'll take the GM's analysis any day of the week.
Before the grand prix was played regularly, many gm's hadn't seen it. In fact I think it was a game of bobby fischer's in which he played the same structure as black that people started thinking about playing it as white. So theoretically you could take someone that was familiar with fischer's game, started playing it as white, took lessons from gm's, all while it was relatively unknown. Then you get another gm who has never heard of it, and you can get better analysis of it from the player who is weaker yet has spent much time learning about it than the gm that spent all of 30 seconds analyzing the positions.
I'm not going to disagree that with the same amount of time a gm can give better quality analysis. But I specifically said above that a person can put in more time and effort and get better analysis.
No GM has never seen the Grand Prix. (Plus, it is no longer a player's own analysis if the player uses a computer--many programs these days are GM-strength--to analyze a move, regardless of who suggested it.)
I agree with you that some people put too much emphasis on rating points, but for the most part, if 2 players (a GM and a non-GM) analyze an unfamiliar position for the same amount of time (with no computer assistance), I'll take the GM's analysis any day of the week.